Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1887-06-03

William ii. Legg, well-known in
this city, and one of the oyster COM
missioners appointed under the
joint resolution Of the General As
sembly Of Maryland, at the session
of 1882. to examine the condition
of the oyster beds of the State, who
is we'll posted on the oyster beds
Of the Chesapeake, differs with Mr..
Shriyer in his views on the oyster
cultivation Of the Chesapeake and
writes to the Baltimore Sun his
views OH the subject as follows
1.-The views of Mr.. Shriver on the
oyster question, as presented in to-
days issue of The San, will be read
by thousands and attract general
attention. No doubt but what the
views as expressed are honestly en-
tertained, but in many respects
they are misleading and wrong in
fact. With your consent will point
out some of the errors and hastily
refer to one or two statements cal
culated to mislead. lie first states,
'for the last twenty years there has
been constant and ever-increasing
destruction of the oysters of the
Chesapeake and tributaries Sta
tistics prove to the contrary. AS
rule the quantity of oysters taken
yearly from our waters increases,
and the oyster beds and bottoms
have gradually, as worked, grown
larger and extended, and their on
ly need is sufficient time for rest to
mature the young and growing oys-
tiers. In many of the creeks, in
narrow and shallow waters, the
tongmen have taken oysters. shells
and all, and so cleaned the beds
that the oysters have been entirely
destroyed, but these waters would
grow better and more abundantly
than ever if the shells were again
placed there as clutch for the
young oysters to catch to. These
waters are alive every season with
oyster spat, and all they want is
something to fall upon and catch to
to insure a good stand and a good
crop. Nature will do the rest, but
noture without mans skill, con-
slant attention, and industry, won't
grow peach orchards or crops of
corn and wheat. The writer's who
favor the selling of our oyster
ground harp upon the blessings of
oyster planting. The unsuspecting
reader would suppose planting in
Maryland was by law denied and
prevalent. Such is not the fact.
The oyster laws of the State for
years have encouraged planting,
and there are thousands of acres
adapted to the growth of oysters of
the finest quality. Why do not
these advocates appropriate these
now barren bottoms and plant ?
This is not what they are after. No;
Mr.. Shriver is direct and honest
about the matter when he says 'the
natural beds, as well as other por-
tons of the bay, should be sold to
the highest bidder 1t is not like
ly these oyster beds and bars, so
valuable to the poor, would be as
good as given to the rich ? For no
poor man could work an oyster farm.
When the waters of the bay are thus
disposed of, how long before the
county waters will go the same way?
The oyster beds of the State need
only proper rest and protection,
and planting should be adopted as
now proposed by the law, and bar
rem bottoms thus reclaimed, and
the time for dredging and longing,
too, in the fall should be later and
shorter; licenses all around should
be higher; the cost of protection
can be greatly reduced and the force
lessened, the oysters and the State
force lessened, the oysters and the
State protected alike, and the right
of every man in common to make
his dollar on this rich domain and
commons of the State under the
law guaranteed and protected. New
York, Connecticut-no, none of
these States have sold their oyster
beds. Why should Maryland ?"
e - -